update_quest

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'update an existing quest'. It does not specify whether this is a partial update or full replacement, what happens for invalid ids, whether campaignId must match, or what response an agent can expect.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and starts with the verb, but at only four words it is under-specified for a tool with three required parameters and a nested object. It is concise in length but not in a way that serves the agent's needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with all-required parameters, a nested 'data' object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin to allow correct invocation. Missing details include accepted data fields, return behavior, error handling, and the relationship between campaignId and id.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description explains none of the three required parameters. The 'data' object has no documented fields, and the roles of 'id' and 'campaignId' are entirely undefined, so an agent cannot determine what to supply.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('quest'), and the word 'existing' indicates it operates on an already-created quest rather than creating a new one. This distinguishes it from create_quest, list_quests, and delete_quest, though it adds little beyond what the tool name already communicates.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like create_quest or get_quest. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned; the only hint is the word 'existing', which is already implied by the tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.